Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9298779" data-attributes="member: 7006">I'm of the opinion that a lot of the changes WotC put forth in the original playtest packets for One D&amp;D weren't actually all that much better than the stuff we already had, but some folks really latched onto them because they were new and different ideas.&nbsp; And for some players, anything new would be a welcomed sight. But just because something is new doesn't mean it's actually more worthwhile to have in the game, and it seems apparently that a lot of the playerbase felt that way.The spell source groupings are just one example: is assigning spells to groups of classes actually appreciably &quot;better&quot; that assigning spells to individual classes?&nbsp;&nbsp; Doesn't seem that way based on opinions and poll results.&nbsp; That change looks like it did not set off any &quot;Eureka!&quot; moment that exploded the game open and made everyone go &quot;Why didn't we think of this before!?!&nbsp; We need this!&quot;&nbsp; Which is not surprising... most ideas in all ways of life end up being met with just shrugs from a lot of people and very few ever are worth a 'Eureka!' reaction.Now, was the change interesting?&nbsp; I'm sure to a lot of players it was, oftentimes just as a curiosity factor for delving into something new and seeing how things could be... but I suspect (based on the poll results) that not a lot of people thought it was a changed that HAD to be made to the game to make it appreciably better.&nbsp; It'd make spellcasting in 5E24 slightly different, sure, but different for difference sake does not make it worth doing per se.&nbsp; And if compatibility and accessibility were important for this new game update, it looks like WotC felt there was no reason to swap out things that worked fine for most people and wouldn't be markedly improved by the new idea.&nbsp; Which is also not surprising-- if most players actually like most of the 5E14 D&amp;D game... there's no reason to change things for the sake of changing them-- spell groupings, the Warlock chassis, wildshape templates etc.&nbsp; And while some people might have thought any of those ideas were the greatest ideas... if not enough people agreed then there was no reason for a switch to be made.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9298779, member: 7006"] I'm of the opinion that a lot of the changes WotC put forth in the original playtest packets for One D&D weren't actually all that much better than the stuff we already had, but some folks really latched onto them because they were new and different ideas. And for some players, anything new would be a welcomed sight. But just because something is new doesn't mean it's actually more worthwhile to have in the game, and it seems apparently that a lot of the playerbase felt that way. The spell source groupings are just one example: is assigning spells to groups of classes actually appreciably "better" that assigning spells to individual classes? Doesn't seem that way based on opinions and poll results. That change looks like it did not set off any "Eureka!" moment that exploded the game open and made everyone go "Why didn't we think of this before!?! We need this!" Which is not surprising... most ideas in all ways of life end up being met with just shrugs from a lot of people and very few ever are worth a 'Eureka!' reaction. Now, was the change interesting? I'm sure to a lot of players it was, oftentimes just as a curiosity factor for delving into something new and seeing how things [I]could[/I] be... but I suspect (based on the poll results) that not a lot of people thought it was a changed that HAD to be made to the game to make it appreciably better. It'd make spellcasting in 5E24 slightly [I]different[/I], sure, but different for difference sake does not make it worth doing per se. And if compatibility and accessibility were important for this new game update, it looks like WotC felt there was no reason to swap out things that worked fine for most people and wouldn't be markedly improved by the new idea. Which is also not surprising-- if most players actually like most of the 5E14 D&D game... there's no reason to change things for the sake of changing them-- spell groupings, the Warlock chassis, wildshape templates etc. And while some people might have thought any of those ideas were the greatest ideas... if not enough people agreed then there was no reason for a switch to be made. [/QUOTE]

Verification